[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250618130254.GD794930@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:02:54 +0100
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, yangyicong@...ilicon.com,
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ali Saidi <alisaidi@...zon.com>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
yangjinqian <yangjinqian1@...wei.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: perf usage of arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:51:03PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
[...]
> >> Directly including the kernel header introduces the very fragility that
> >> having a copy was intended to avoid. NAK to that.
> >
> > My suggestion is not to include the kernel header, nor to modify the
> > copy header. :)
> >
> > Instead, I suggested creating a new header within the perf tool (under
> > perf's arm64 folder) and then include the copy header in tools:
> >
> > tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> >
>
> sorry for the misunderstood.:(
> in this way we still have the divergency in the long term and as a workaround
> this works same if we partly update the tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> with only necessary MIDR updates and keep is_midr_in_range_list() unchanged.
Yes. So Mark's suggestion is reasonable that we can do refactoring first
to avoid syncing header.
[...]
> > @Yicong, could you confirm if you proceed to refactor the MIDR? thanks!
>
> please feel free to take this over.
Thanks a lot for confirmation! And thanks for working on the reported
issue.
> > Just note, I searched tools folder and found kselftest also uses the
> > cputype.h header. The refactoring should not break the files below.
> >
>
> they shouldn't affected. I did a kselftest build test with my latest patch
> and they were not affected.
I expect tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h will be removed, and
a generated header (something like sys-midr.h) for MIDR refactoring.
If this is true, then we need to take care kselftest.
Thanks,
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists